Noah's Flood.

Questions to Ponder and Discuss

What critical finding came out of the Deep Sea Drilling Project work on
Mediterranean evaporites? How might you report on this? Why are some parts
of this report more accessible than many technical articles?

What are some
of the strategies used in Noah's Flood to appeal to a wide readership? Why
might drawings have been used for illustrations in Noah's
Flood?

Are similar strategies used in the popular articles and reviews of
the book? For example, do you find the "Ballard's adventures" form
of the National Geographic article to be appealing? How important are the
personalities
of the scientists involved in giving this story 'legs'?

How might
you report on the flood story, using "Noah" as a news
peg, but not allowing the integrity of the findings to rely on it?

Bill Ryan
says that the most common question he still gets when lecturing is about
the plausibility of an account of the flood being maintained through
oral tradition. Consider this in light of "Homer in Bosnia." Was
this question discussed at all in the popular articles?

The word "Noah" was
never used in any of Ryan and Pitman's technical papers, yet, it is used
in some of the responses. How should the scientific
community, and science journalists, treat sections of scientific work that
are outside of the peer review system?

What is strange about the citations
of Aksu's paper? Note the time period he speculates on in the first article,
and then the timespan of his samples.

How might the 1991 Russian article affect
the flood hypothesis? How would you report it? What if it just came to your
attention recently? Obviously,
as a journalist, you cannot interpret on your own. What would you do to get
a story out of it?

Should more scientists take the time to speculate on interdisciplinary
projects? What is the proper platform for this? Even if the flood was not "Noah's," what
is the value of the insight into scientific process that "Noah's Flood" gives
us? How could this be incorporated into an article?

Why do you think there
was so much more early interest in the Noah's
Flood hypothesis? (The sampling of popular articles included is representative
of the broader number found.)

Why did Ballard's discovery of an underwater
dwelling spark so much media attention? Compare the four articles published
immediately following
its announcement.

How well do you think that the stories that describe the
scientific debates surrounding the flood hypothesis portray the questions
at issue? Does Ryan's
reply to his critics merit a follow-up article?